How to Prove Locke, Berkeley, and Hume Wrong

[housenuts]

why not just put an audio recorder in the forest and check it later.

i'm gonna lean towards the side that says a sound would be made

[jthegreat]

Obviously it makes a sound.

Obviously it is not possible to answer this question.

By definition, assuming something that is inperceivable is called faith. Others may tell you something like, "well we could just leave a tape recorder next to the tree and then listen to the tape." But this proves nothing. A tape recorder is an instrument of perception, exactly like your brain. So if the tape recorder did catch a noise from the falling tree, then the event was indeed perceieved at the moment of the event, no different than if someone had been standing there.

This could lead into my main criticizm of Objectivism, but that's for another thread.

[jthegreat]

There are many ways in which you could verify this. Tape recorder, video camera, seismograph, etc...

If you're allowing no means of verification, but then demanding proof, you're asking a meaningless question to begin with.

However, the original question only stipulates that no person is around. We can prove that it does make a sound without having a person present.

Case closed.

[atrifix]

Have fun. If you succeed, you'll win international recognition (perhaps the Schock prize) and your name will be immortalized in the history of philosophy.

[jthegreat]

As I explained in my above post, it's a bullshit loaded question to begin with. If you cite physical laws that would generate sound, people demand verification. If you attempt to set up a system of verification, they say you aren't allowed to verify it.

It's bullshit. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[atrifix]

What if the physical laws themselves change when you attempt to verify it? That is, after all, what quantum mechanics is all about.

The question, I think, is really not so interesting. A definitive proof would be, but it would also be practically impossible to obtain.

"So if the tape recorder did catch a noise from the falling tree, then the event was indeed perceieved at the moment of the event, no different than if someone had been standing there."

Nothing need be present at the moment of the event to deterimine if a sound was made. A hurricane leaves a path of destruction that can be seen after the event. A hurricane is just molecules pushing other molecules. At the microscopic level, sound would do the same thing - leave a path of destruction. Therefore, you should be able to walk in after the fact and examine the evidence of sound being made, if you had the right instruments.
Unless you want to define sound differently.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
He said that these three would argue that there would be no sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, who could disagree. Nothing external to our minds creates sound, there are external actions that stimulate us into creating sounds but they are not necessary for it's creation.

All a falling tree does is create compression waves, for most humans our minds will use that input to create 'sound' but in some it may stimulate visual effects and in others it may stimulate taste or smell effects.

When the doc hooks me up to the EKG and wiggly lines appear on the screen it'd be foolish to say my heart creates squiqly lines on a screen. They appear only because the raw output from the heart has been manipulated to do so.

I'm actually thinking of getting rewired so the compression waves stimulate in me those neat visual effects I get from my Real Player screen when I play music. Visual Bach.

Good luck proving the boys wrong,

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

I really wasn't trying make a deal out of this question. I realize it is a silly question, but we talked about it in philosophy class and I just wanted to see what everyone else had to say.